Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  
About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions
Home | Login  | Users Online: 2228  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size    

Year : 2009  |  Volume : 53  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 302-305

Comparison of Clinical Performance of I-GelTM with LMA-ProsealTM in Elective Surgeries

1 Chairperson,Department of Anesthesiology. Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi, India
2 Consultant, Department of Anesthesiology. Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi, India
3 P.G.Student, Department of Anesthesiology. Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Monika Gupta
70 Loknayak Apartments, Sector 9. Rohini, New Delhi
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

PMID: 20640137

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

Sixty ASA grade I& II adult patients of either sex were randomly assigned into two groups .Group I (n=30) for I-gel and Group P (n=30) I'or LMA - ProSeal . We assessed the airway sealing pressure, ease of insertion, success rate of insertion, ease of gastric tube placement, airway trauma by post operative blood staining ofthe device, tongue, lip and dental trauma, hoarseness, regurgitation / aspiration and cost effectiveness. Although the airway sealing pressure was higher with Group P (29.6 cm H 2 O) than with Group I (25.27 cm H 2 0) (p < 0.05), but the airway sealing pressure of Group I was very well within the normal limit to prevent aspiration.The ease of insertion was more with Group I (29/30) than with Group P (25/30) (p <0.05). The success rate of first attempt of insertion and ease of gastric tube placement was more with Group I (p> 0.05). Blood staining of the device& tongue, lip and dental trauma was more with Group P (p >0.05). There was no evidence of bronchospasm, laryngospasm, regurgitation, aspiration or hoarseness in either group. To conclude I-gel is a novel supraglottic device with an acceptable airway sealing pressure (25.27 cm H 2 O). It is easier to insert, requires less attempts of insertion, has easier gastric tube placement and is less traumatic as compared to LMA-ProSeal.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded748    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal